Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High consumption of red and processed meat contributes to both health and environmental harms. Warning labels and taxes for red meat reduce selection of red meat overall, but little is known about how these potential policies affect purchases of subcategories of red meat (e.g., processed versus unprocessed) or of non-red-meat foods (e.g., cheese, pulses) relevant to health and environmental outcomes. This study examined consumer responses to warning labels and taxes for red meat in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In October 2021, we recruited 3,518 US adults to complete a shopping task in a naturalistic online grocery store. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four arms: control (no warning labels or tax), warning labels only (health and environmental warning labels appeared next to products containing red meat), tax only (prices of products containing red meat were increased 30%) or combined warning labels + tax. Participants selected items to hypothetically purchase, which we categorized into food groups based on the presence of animal- and plant-source ingredients (e.g., beef, eggs, pulses), meat processing level (e.g., processed pork versus unprocessed pork), and meat species (e.g., beef versus pork). We assessed the effects of the warning labels and tax on selections from each food group. RESULTS: Compared to control, all three interventions led participants to select fewer items with processed meat (driven by reductions in processed pork) and (for the tax and warning labels + tax interventions only) fewer items with unprocessed meat (driven by reductions in unprocessed beef). All three interventions also led participants to select more items containing cheese, while only the combined warning labels + tax intervention led participants to select more items containing processed poultry. Except for an increase in selection of pulses in the tax arm, the interventions did not affect selections of fish or seafood (processed or unprocessed), eggs, or plant-based items (pulses, nuts & seeds, tofu, meat mimics, grains & potatoes, vegetables). CONCLUSIONS: Policies to reduce red meat consumption are also likely to affect consumption of other types of foods that are relevant to both health and environmental outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04716010 on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov .

Addressing the carbon footprint, healthfulness, and costs of self-selected diets in the USA: a population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The role of diet in health is well established and, in the past decade, more attention has been given to the role of food choices in the environment. The agricultural sector produces about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), and meat production, especially beef, is an important contributor to global GHGE. Our study aimed to address a fundamental gap in the diet-climate literature: identifying consumers who are receptive to making dietary changes, and the effect of their potential changes on GHGE, diet healthfulness, and diet costs. METHODS: Dietary data on US individuals from a nationally representative survey were linked to food-related GHGE. We identified individuals receptive to changing their diets (potential changers) as those who reported trying US dietary guidance and were likely to agree that humans contribute to climate change. We assessed GHGE, diet healthfulness measured by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), and diet costs before and after hypothetical changes replacing either beef or meats with poultry or plant-protein foods. FINDINGS: Our sample comprised 7188 individuals, of whom 16% were potential changers. These were disproportionately women, highly educated, or had higher income compared with individuals deemed not likely to change. Replacing 100% of beef intake in potential changers with poultry reduced mean dietary GHGE by 1·38 kg CO2-equivalents per person per day (95% CI 1·19-1·58), a 35·7% decrease. This replacement also increased mean HEI by 1·7% and reduced mean diet costs by 1·7%. We observed the largest changes when replacing all beef, pork, or poultry intake with plant-protein foods (GHGE decreased by 49·6%, mean HEI increased by 8·7%, and dietary costs decreased by 10·5%). Hypothetical replacements in the potential changers alone resulted in whole population reductions in 1-day dietary GHGE of 1·2% to 6·7%, equivalent to 22-126 million fewer passenger vehicle km. INTERPRETATION: Individual-level diet studies that include a variation in response by consumers can improve our understanding of the effects of climate policies such as those that include sustainability information in national dietary guidance. In our study, we found that changes by a small percentage of motivated individuals can modestly reduce the national dietary GHGE. Moreover, these substitutions can modestly improve diet healthfulness and reduce diet costs for individuals who make these changes. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

10 Years Later: Changes in Food Access Disparities in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina.

Inadequate access to healthy food is a problem in many urban neighborhoods, particularly for racial-ethnic minorities and low-income groups who are more likely to reside in food deserts. Although substantial research throughout the country has documented the existence of these disparities, few studies have focused on how this access changes over time or is affected by environmental shocks. This study examined citywide supermarket access in New Orleans as well as racial-ethnic disparities in this access, prior to Hurricane Katrina and at three times afterwards. On-the-ground verification of supermarket locations was conducted in 2004-2005, 2007, 2009, and 2014 and was mapped with secondary demographic data. Census tracts were defined as predominantly African-American neighborhoods if 80 % or more of the population identified as such. HLM Poisson regression analyses were conducted in 2014 to identify the difference in likelihood of finding supermarkets in a neighborhood by race-ethnicity and across all years of interest. Racial-ethnic disparities existed before the storm and worsened after it (IRR = 0.35; 95 % CI = 0.21, 0.60). Improvements in disparities to pre-storm levels were not seen until 2009, 4 years after the storm. By 2014, supermarket access, on average, was not significantly different in African-American neighborhoods than in others (IRR = 0.90; 95 % CI = 0.65, 1.26). The slow recovery of New Orleans' retail food infrastructure after Hurricane Katrina highlights the need for an increased focus on long-term planning to address disparities, especially those that may be exaggerated by shocks.